• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Texas will require burial of aborted fetuses

Good on the Texas legislature for their concern for the well-being of abortion providers. How thoughtful of them!
 
TownieDeac said:
You mean to determine if a law has a legally well-reasoned basis, right? Because the law doesn't have the market on reason cornered.
Click to expand...

Sure, though in rational basis review the standard is pretty low and it's hard to imagine off the top of my head any rational bases that would not withstand this review (though one could argue that irrational bases often withstand this review).

heightened scrutiny is a different story and as currently applied wrongfully excludes otherwise rational laws while allowing irrational laws.
 
Junebug said:
Again, no one is requiring the mother to perform a burial, attend a funeral service, or, for that matter, do a single thing different than before this law was passed. This law keeps abortion providers from pureeing fetuses in a cuisinart.
Click to expand...

actually, it appears one can still puree the fetus, it just has to interned

(B)The products of spontaneous or induced human abortion shall be subjected to one of the following methods of treatment and disposal:
(i)fetal tissue, regardless of the period of gestation, except as provided by §1.133 of this title (relating to Scope, Covering Exemptions and Minimum Parametric Standards for Waste Treatment Technologies Previously Approved by the Texas Department of State Health Services):
(I)incineration followed by interment;
(II)steam disinfection followed by interment; or
(III)interment;
(ii)blood and body fluids:
(I)discharging into a sanitary sewer system;
(II)steam disinfection followed by deposition in a sanitary landfill;
(III)incineration followed by deposition of the residue in a sanitary landfill;
(IV)thermal inactivation followed by deposition in a sanitary landfill;
(V)thermal inactivation followed by grinding and discharging into a sanitary sewer system;
(VI)chemical disinfection followed by deposition in a sanitary landfill;
(VII)chemical disinfection followed by grinding and discharging into a sanitary sewer system;
(VIII)moist heat disinfection followed by deposition in a sanitary landfill;
(IX)chlorine disinfection/maceration followed by deposition in a sanitary landfill; or
(X)an approved alternate treatment process, provided that the process renders the item as unrecognizable, followed by deposition in a sanitary landfill;
(iii)any other tissues, including placenta, umbilical cord and gestational sac:
(I)grinding and discharging to a sanitary sewer system;
(II)incineration followed by deposition of the residue in a sanitary landfill;
(III)steam disinfection followed by interment;
(IV)interment;
(V)moist heat disinfection followed by deposition in a sanitary landfill;
(VI)chlorine disinfection/maceration followed by deposition in a sanitary landfill; or
(VII)an approved alternate treatment process, provided that the process renders the item as unrecognizable, followed by deposition in a sanitary landfill.
Click to expand...
 
Junebug said:
TRIGGER WARNING

Hypothetically speaking, what if the legislature concluded that putting a third trimester aborted fetus in a blender, hitting puree, and then flushing it down the toilet creates unwanted psychological effects on abortion providers, nurses, and the general public that causes the denigration and devaluation of human life in the mind of the general populace? Why is that conclusion, which pertains to psychological well being, qualitatively different from a conclusion that dead bodies lining the street create an undue risk of physical disease?
Click to expand...

And this is the problem I have with how we currently apply rational basis review. Empirical data should play some role. It need not be decisive but any rational basis should have some factual support. The standard should not be logical possibility. No legislature deserves that much deference
 
Junebug said:
It's almost like you intentionally ignored the phrase "general public."

Also, I sincerely doubt you'd make an argument like "stupid roofers don't need safety ladders. Just get a new job!"
Click to expand...

That is definitely the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top